• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

North Carolina Personal Injury & Workers Compensation Attorneys

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • linkedin

Call Us 919-240-4054

Main navigation

  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burns and Explosions Lawyer
      • Chemical Exposure Lawyer
      • Construction Accident Lawyer
      • Durham Back Injury Lawyer
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19 Lawyer
      • Occupational Disease Lawyer
      • Union Member Lawyer
      • Workplace Violence Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crashes
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • College Campus Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Request a Speaking Engagement
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

June 30, 2010 By nicole

Supreme Court rules on arbitration issues for unions and employees in two cases

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions concerning whether particular issues had to be decided by an arbitrator or in federal court. One care arose in the traditional area of labor arbitration between companies and unions; the second arose in the ever-growing area of employer-imposed arbitration agreements on regular employees.

In the first, Granite Rock v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Court ruled for the company, as ScotusBlog describes:

The parties had reached a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but they disagreed about both when the CBA was formed and who should decide that question.  Today the Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, held that a court, rather than an arbitrator, should decide when the CBA was formed. The Court explained that under the CBA, arbitration is required only when a dispute “arise[s] under” the agreement – which a dispute over when the CBA was formed does not. The Court also held that the lower court properly declined to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action against the parent international union, which – according to the employer – tortiously interfered with the CBA.

In the second, Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, the Court sided with the employer, and held that the issue of unconscionability (a challenge to whether the arbitration agreement is valid in the first place), was to be decided by the arbitrator, as Workplace Prof Blog describes:

The Court held the issue was governed by the separability doctrine of Prima Paint: an arbitration agreement is assailable only if the arbitration agreement itself — not the overall agreement of which the arbitration is a part — is assailable on state-contract law grounds. So far, so good for Jackson — until today, this separability doctrine has been applied only when an arbitration agreement was part of a broader (“container”) agreement that was not related to arbitration — e.g., an arbitration provision in a consulting-services contract or in a larger employment contract. Jackson’s unconscionability argument was directed squarely at his arbitration agreement.

Today, however, the Court extended Prima Paint to hold that the arbitration agreement itself can be the container contract, and that unconscionability arguments must be directed toward specific provisions of the arbitration agreement. Jackson’s unconscionability arguments, the Court held, were directed at the arbitration agreement generally, and therefore could not be grounds for voiding the arbitration agreement as a whole.

Read the whole post for its insightful analysis of how the Court erred, once again stretching the law to give a victory to employers over employees.

Related posts:

  1. Supreme Court rules on workplace privacy and two-member labor board
  2. U.S. Supreme Court high season begins
  3. Two employment decisions from the Supreme Court
  4. Supreme Court endorses associational retaliation claim

Filed Under: In the News Tagged With: Arbitration Agreement, Case Commentary, CBA, Labor Arbitration, Teamsters, Unions, US Supreme Court

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Contact us

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees Workers’ Compensation Lawyers in Charlotte
  • Experienced Union Members Attorneys in North Carolina

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Durham Back Injury Lawyers
  • Burns and explosions
  • Chemical Exposure
  • COVID-19 and Healthcare Workers
  • Occupational Diseases
  • Workplace Violence

Free Legal Resources

  • Workers’ Compensation 101
  • 8 Questions to Answer Before You Are Ever in a Wreck
  • Essentials for Workers’ Comp Success
  • Help for Families of North Carolina Burn Victims

Locations

Durham Office

300 Blackwell St. #101,
Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd. #6
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Practice Areas

Workers Compensation | Bicycle Crashes | Personal Injury

OTHER PRACTICE AREAS

Crisis Management | Employment Law | Mass Torts | Camp Lejeune Water Contamination | Vaccine Injury | Resort & Recreational Activity Injuries | Workers Comp Wage & Hours Disputes | College Campus Injuries | Drunk Driving Injury victim | Industrial Accidents | Inadequate Security Claims | Workplace Injuries | Covid 19 – Business Interruption | Workplace Injury 3rd Party Claims

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC